10 reasons why the TV version sucks
Saw the television version for the first time when it was on Sleuth (I have the theatrical version on VHS). It left such a nasty taste in my mouth that I immediately had to pop my copy into the VCR and watch the "real" ending to the movie. I've since calmed down, reflected, and decided to put my rage into words.
So I offer 10 reasons why the expanded television version is inferior to the original theatrical version.
*SPOILERS* I give away details about the endings of both versions during my rant.
(1)The editing between the television and theatrical versions doesn't work at all. The film stock isn't the same, and the inserted footage sticks out like a sore thumb.
(2)In his review of the film, Roger Ebert complained (unfairly, in my opinion) that we don't know much about the sniper. Unfortunately, the television version seeked to undo this, with disasterous results. We now see a lot of Carl Cook, and you know what, he's not a very interesting person. We find out that he's opening fire on the crowd to cause a distraction so know one notices an art gallery robbery occuring across the street. Yeah, he's humanized more, but likewise, his menace has been removed. He's no longer the inhuman spectre of evil he was: now he's just a guy trying to make some money.
(3)The new scenes not only don't mesh, they really aren't that interesting either. It just adds to the overall melodrama of the movie. Plus, introducing the art gallery heist keeps diverting attention away from the stadium and over to the thieves, whose scheme isn't even interesting. I was hoping for at least some sort of ultra-coordinated heist scene. But nope, they just wander into the gallery and start cutting the paintings out of the portraits. That's about it.
(4)The tension is gone. In the original movie, we open with the sniper shooting a bicylcist for no good reason (I'm assuming it was just target practice). It's scary and disturbing. For obvious reasons, that scene was excised out of this print. The movie establishing fairly quickly that the sniper just wants to cause a commotion. So really, the movie loses it's core reason for being: it's no longer about a psycho killer. The movie also replaces most of its slasher movie POV shots with the camera staring directly at Cook. Before we "followed" him about as he plotted his actions, not knowing what he was going to do next. Now we're just sort of stuck with him as he bides his time.
(5)The lack of tension has another effect: the "victims" are no longer in the same level of danger they were in the original film. Seriously, disaster movies usually had character moments to humanize the victims who were soon to either die horribly or experience the loss of friends and loved ones. The whole reason we stay with the degenerate gambler, the out-of-work father, the priest, the bickering couple and the two lovebirds making stolen glances at each other is because we fear that their world is about to come crashing down on them. But with the removal of death from the picture, their whole story arcs are ultimately pointless. It seems like they were included to pad out the running time of the robbery instead of the other way around.
(6)Okay, it's now the two-minute warning and our sniper friend is shooting like mad. At light towers and other non-living targets. Not only are these added scenes hokey looking, but they just further reinforce the fact that the television version is just stupid. Plus, it takes forever for the fans to realize anything's happening. And remember, at this point, the cops are still from the original version of the movie, so all of their extreme actions to take the sniper down from this point are kind of over-the-top from the viewers perspective. What made sense in the original version of the movie now looks completely daffy.
(7)When panic finally sets in amongst the crowd, the movie really become ludicrous. The scenes of fans storming the field and running through the halls was one of the highlights of the original film. However, because the movie keeps cutting back to the robbery and the newly added scenes of Cook trying to escape, the panic now goes on for an insane length of time. Probably twice as long as in the original. It seems like it goes on forever, and I'm sure they reused footage again and again just to pad it out. To make matters worse, some of the scenes are edited out of order. I mean, the whole editing here is horrible, and and because of all the jumping around, we can't even get a feel for what's happening.
(8)Here's an interesting case of the screenplay being dumb and smart at the same time. The art gallery robbers were counting on the chaos and confusion at the Coliseum to cover their tracks. However, with all the people running around panicking, many of them decide to run across the street and seek shelter in the art gallery, further complicating their getaway. Did the robbers think the frightened people fearing for their lives would all orderly run in one direction? It was pretty dumb on their parts, if you ask me.
(9)This part I find incredibly dumb. Okay, human beings are selfish when they're panicky. When you're running for your life, you'll trample over people to get ahead of them, whatever. It's just human nature. Which makes what happens after the robbery idiotic. The robbers, while trying to drive their getaway van through the crowded streets (another idiotic part of their plan... did they not know that 91,000 people leaving a stadium at the same time would severely inhibit traffic?) accidently hit a teenage girl and send her flying. The crowd of people, who were just seconds ago mindlessly running around trampling each other, pick THIS MOMENT to become infuriated at an action that has endangered someone's life. The crowd, composed of a politically correct combination of whites, blacks and Asians (naturally) attack the van, shaking it back and further and preventing the robbers' escape. Given all the chaos that has proceeded this scene, it really looks stupid and out of place.
(10)I hate to beat this into the ground, but really, after the robbery is foiled and the sniper is killed, how are we supposed to feel about this. In the original film, their was a sense of satisfaction at the killer's death. He had been stopped. Now, what are we to make of Cook's death? Yes the police didn't know he didn't intend to kill anyone, but we the audience did. Are we supposed to sympathize with the sniper and think the police used excessive force? Is it a warning that crime doesn't pay? Really, because of the poorly developed nature of the new footage mixed with incompatible hardcore nature of the original, you really can't take any message away from the movie. It just doesn't work.